OA and National Planning Integration

1. Outcome

After reading this Circular, planning officials will be able to design the inter-ministerial coordination arrangements needed to embed ocean account outputs into national development plans, blue economy strategies, and international reporting commitments. The guidance outlines coordination models for ocean accounting, approaches for identifying and sustaining domestic champions, and strategies for leveraging regional platforms and international reporting architectures to maintain political and institutional support.

The scope of this Circular is deliberately focused on governance design for coordination: how countries organise the institutional arrangements that connect ocean accounting to national planning processes. It does not address measurement methods for governance structures, which are covered in TG-3.7 Governance Accounts, nor the data-specific coordination architectures (data-sharing agreements, technical working groups, platform design) addressed in TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures. The distinction is important: this Circular addresses who coordinates and under what authority, while TG-4.7 addresses how data flows between agencies, and TG-3.7 addresses how governance arrangements are themselves measured and recorded within the accounting system.

Ocean accounts generate outputs that cut across the mandates of multiple government agencies. SEEA EA Chapter 13 notes that an "integrated and standardized set of accounts" can support balanced decisions across social, environmental and economic dimensions^[1]. This integration does not happen automatically. It requires deliberate institutional design: mandates, coordination bodies, and sustained political engagement that connect the production of accounts to the planning processes where resource allocation decisions are made.

2. Requirements

Essential prerequisites:

• TG-0.1 General Introduction to Ocean Accounts—for the conceptual framework and key components of Ocean Accounts, including the multiple-capitals framework for well-being and sustainability
• TG-1.1 OA and National Budget Processes—for the specific procedures by which ocean account outputs feed into budget formulation, medium-term expenditure frameworks, and fiscal planning

Helpful background:

• TG-3.7 Governance Accounts—for the methods used to compile governance accounts that document institutional arrangements, legal frameworks, and policy instruments
• TG-3.8 Combined Presentations—for the integrated account presentations that bring together environmental, economic, and governance data for policy users
• TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures—for the data-sharing agreements, technical working groups, and platform design that underpin inter-agency ocean data flows

3. Guidance Material

3.1 Embedding OA Outputs in National Development Plans

3.1.1 The rationale for planning integration

National development plans establish a country's medium- to long-term priorities for economic growth, social development, and environmental management. These plans set the strategic direction that annual budgets, sectoral strategies, and international commitments are expected to follow. For ocean-rich countries—including small island developing States, coastal nations with significant exclusive economic zones, and countries whose economies depend substantially on marine resources—the absence of ocean-related information from national development plans can result in planning frameworks that systematically undervalue marine natural capital and fail to account for the sustainability of ocean-dependent economic activities.

The 2025 SNA's new chapters on well-being and sustainability (Chapters 34-35) identify other dimensions of well-being and sustainability that "can be addressed through a suite of thematic and extended accounts"^[2]. Ocean accounts are precisely such a thematic account, providing standardised data on marine natural capital stocks, ocean ecosystem service flows, and the depletion-adjusted economic contribution of ocean sectors that development plans should consider.

The Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) partnership (2012--2021) demonstrated that natural capital—including fisheries, mangroves, coral reefs, and other marine assets—should be treated alongside produced and human capital when assessing a country's total wealth and development trajectory^[3]. WAVES activities were subsequently transitioned to the Global Program on Sustainability (GPS), hosted at the World Bank. Ocean accounts extend this approach to the marine domain, providing the specific data structures needed to incorporate ocean wealth into comprehensive wealth assessments.

3.1.2 Entry points in the planning cycle

National development plans typically follow a multi-year cycle comprising situation analysis, priority setting, strategy formulation, implementation programming, and monitoring and evaluation. The governance design must ensure that account outputs are available in the right format at the right time. The most important entry points are:

Situation analysis and diagnostics. At the outset of a planning cycle, governments assess the current state of the economy, society, and environment. Ocean accounts provide a structured evidence base for this assessment: ocean economy thematic accounts (TG-2.5 Structure and Function of the Ocean Economy) quantify the sector's contribution to GDP, employment, and exports; asset accounts (TG-3.1 Asset Accounts) reveal whether marine natural capital is being maintained or depleted; and ecosystem service flow accounts (TG-3.2 Flows Between Environment and Economy) document the benefits that ocean ecosystems provide to coastal communities and the broader economy. The governance coordination body (see Section 3.2) should ensure that a "state of the ocean economy" synthesis is prepared and submitted to the planning authority during the diagnostic phase.

Priority setting and resource allocation. Depletion-adjusted ocean GVA calculations (see TG-1.1 Section 3.4) provide the evidence needed to argue that resource management investment is a precondition for sustaining the ocean economy's contribution to national income. If fish stock accounts show declining biomass, or ecosystem extent accounts show mangrove loss, these trends should be reflected in planning priorities alongside more conventional economic indicators.

Monitoring and evaluation. Because accounts are compiled on a regular cycle using consistent methods, they generate comparable time series that track progress against plan targets. The indicators derivable from ocean accounts—including ocean economy GDP share, fish stock biomass trends, ecosystem extent changes, and depletion-adjusted income measures—can serve as headline indicators for ocean-related development plan objectives. This approach aligns with SEEA EA Chapter 14's guidance that the coherence of information across accounts is particularly important when indicators are designed to support national sustainability policies^[4].

3.1.3 Blue economy strategies

A blue economy strategy is a national policy framework or strategic plan that designates marine and coastal resources as priorities for sustainable economic development^[5]. The guidance in this section applies equally to standalone blue economy strategies and to blue economy chapters embedded in broader national development plans. Many countries—including Seychelles and Kenya—have adopted standalone strategies, while others integrate blue economy objectives directly into their national development plans. A more developed conceptual architecture for the blue economy, including the linkages between blue economy measurement and national statistical frameworks, is set out in the World Bank (2022) Blue Economy Development Framework^[6].

A blue economy strategy grounded in ocean accounts can specify targets in terms of measurable account entries: ocean economy GVA growth rates that do not exceed sustainable yield limits; ecosystem extent targets for mangrove restoration or marine protected area expansion; condition thresholds for coral reef health or water quality that must be maintained as ocean industries expand. See TG-2.5 Structure and Function of the Ocean Economy for the account structures that underpin blue economy measurement.

The governance coordination body should ensure that the national statistical office (NSO) or designated compilation agency is formally tasked with producing the account outputs needed to monitor blue economy strategy targets. This requires a standing arrangement—not a one-off data request—that links the accounting compilation cycle to the strategy's reporting cycle. The institutional models described in Section 3.2 provide options for establishing this standing arrangement.

3.1.4 Aligning compilation cycles with planning timelines

A persistent challenge in using environmental-economic accounts for planning is the lag between the reference period of the accounts and the planning decisions they are intended to inform. Many countries compile national accounts with a one- to two-year lag, and environmental accounts may face additional delays due to the complexity of ecosystem data collection. Countries should address this timing challenge through three strategies.

First, establish a regular compilation schedule aligned with the planning cycle. The coordination body should establish a release date that provides sufficient lead time for analytical synthesis ahead of the planning review diagnostic phase, typically six months or more, subject to national planning cycles. Second, consider producing provisional or "flash" estimates for the most recent period, following the approach used by many NSOs for preliminary GDP estimates. Even approximate figures for the latest year are more useful for planning than precise figures that arrive after decisions have been made. Third, use asset account projections to extend the time horizon beyond the latest available data. The asset account structure (opening stock, additions, reductions, closing stock) supports forward projection under alternative policy scenarios, as demonstrated in the MTEF integration procedures described in TG-1.1 Section 3.6.

3.2 Inter-Ministerial Coordination Models

Three broad coordination models are described in the subsections below: the inter-ministerial task force model, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) model, and the embedded unit model. Each has distinct comparative strengths, and many countries use hybrid arrangements that combine elements of more than one model. Hybrid and federated adaptations are explicitly anticipated; the typology is not exhaustive. Section 3.2.6 provides guidance on assessing whether a chosen arrangement is functioning effectively and on managing transitions between models as circumstances change.

In federal systems—such as those of Australia, India, and Canada—the coordination challenge extends beyond central government agencies to include sub-national (state, provincial, or territorial) statistical and planning authorities. In these contexts, the three coordination models must be applied at both sub-national and national levels, and an additional inter-governmental coordination layer is required to harmonise methodologies and consolidate data flows between jurisdictions. Countries with federal governance structures are advised to review the case study experience documented in TG-5.6 Australia Geographe Bay Case Study and TG-5.7 Australia Blue Carbon Case Study, which illustrate how sub-national ocean accounting has been linked to national frameworks in the Australian context.

A further governance variation arises in Pacific island states with shared or delegated ocean data access arrangements—for example, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. In these cases, ocean data relevant to national planning may be accessed through regional bodies or bilateral arrangements rather than through domestic agency networks, presenting coordination challenges that the three models below do not fully address. Countries in these arrangements are encouraged to consult the GOAP Secretariat for tailored coordination guidance and to draw on forthcoming TG-5.x Pacific case studies when available; detailed guidance for these specific arrangements is not yet available within the current Section 5 case study suite.

3.2.1 The coordination challenge

Ocean accounting is inherently cross-cutting. The data needed to compile ocean accounts are held by multiple agencies—the national statistical office, fisheries ministry, environment ministry, maritime transport authority, hydrographic service, tourism ministry, and others. The outputs of ocean accounts are relevant to planning decisions made by finance ministries, development planning agencies, environment ministries, and sectoral agencies responsible for fisheries, tourism, transport, and energy. No single agency controls both the data inputs and the policy outputs of the accounting system.

This cross-cutting character creates a governance design challenge: which institutional model best ensures that (a) the right agencies contribute data and expertise to account compilation, (b) the resulting account outputs reach the planning forums where resource allocation decisions are made, and (c) the arrangement is sustained over time as political priorities and personnel change? The SEEA EA implementation experience, as well as the WAVES programme and the 2025 SNA Implementation Strategy, provide evidence on how countries have addressed this challenge^[7]. Countries selecting among the three coordination models should also draw on the structured readiness diagnostic in TG-0.8 Implementation Readiness Assessment, whose readiness criteria map directly onto the governance dimensions summarised in Table 1.

3.2.2 The inter-ministerial task force model

Under the task force model, the government establishes a formal inter-ministerial body—variously called a task force, steering committee, or commission—with an explicit mandate to oversee ocean accounting and its integration into national planning. The task force typically includes senior representatives from the NSO, finance ministry, environment ministry, fisheries ministry, maritime authority, and planning agency. It may be established by cabinet decision, ministerial order, or executive decree.

The task force model provides a visible, high-level forum where ocean accounting outputs are presented to senior officials from multiple agencies, creating a regular occasion for cross-ministerial dialogue about ocean management priorities. The formal mandate gives the task force authority to request data from contributing agencies and to direct the compilation programme towards the information needs identified by planning officials. The inter-ministerial composition ensures that no single agency dominates the accounting agenda. Indonesia's inter-ministerial working group on other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) illustrates how a task-force arrangement can convene the fisheries, environment, and planning agencies around a shared ocean data agenda; this arrangement is documented in country programme reporting by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) and the Ministry of National Development Planning (BAPPENAS)^[3:1].

Task forces can become bureaucratic coordination mechanisms that meet infrequently and lack operational capacity to drive compilation work between meetings. If membership is too senior, participants may delegate attendance to junior staff who lack authority to make commitments on behalf of their agencies. Countries adopting this model should invest in a dedicated secretariat function—even if small—that maintains momentum between meetings and tracks the implementation of task force decisions.

The 2025 SNA Implementation Strategy recommends that countries establish "appropriate governance mechanisms...to provide oversight" of implementation and suggests that "it may be desirable to establish an Implementation Steering Committee to provide direction and oversight, as well as to ensure coordination across relevant agencies"^[7:1]. Countries may choose to incorporate ocean accounting coordination into existing national accounts steering committees rather than creating a separate body.

3.2.3 The MOU model

Under the MOU model, bilateral or multilateral MOUs between agencies define each agency's responsibilities for ocean accounting. The NSO might sign MOUs with the fisheries ministry (for fish stock data), the environment ministry (for ecosystem extent and condition data), the maritime authority (for shipping and port data), and the tourism ministry (for coastal tourism statistics). Each MOU specifies the data to be shared, the format and frequency of delivery, quality requirements, and the institutional contact points responsible for data provision.

The MOU model is well suited to countries where inter-ministerial coordination bodies have limited convening power or where agencies guard their data holdings closely. By formalising data-sharing arrangements in bilateral agreements, the MOU model creates enforceable commitments that survive changes in personnel and political leadership. The MOU model also allows coordination to develop incrementally: a country can begin with a single MOU between the NSO and the fisheries ministry, demonstrate the value of the resulting accounts, and gradually extend the MOU network to additional agencies.

MOUs govern the flow of data between agencies, but they do not ensure that the resulting account outputs are presented to planning officials or incorporated into development plan processes. Countries relying primarily on the MOU model should supplement it with a mechanism for policy engagement—for example, a regular briefing to the cabinet or development planning committee at which ocean accounting results are presented and their planning implications discussed. The operational details of MOU design for data sharing are addressed in TG-4.7 National Data Coordination Architectures.

3.2.4 The embedded unit model

Under the embedded unit model, a dedicated ocean accounting unit is established within an existing agency—typically the NSO, the planning ministry, or the environment ministry. This unit has a permanent staff, a recurrent budget line, and an explicit mandate to compile ocean accounts and deliver outputs to planning processes. The unit draws on data from other agencies through standing data requests or MOUs, but the compilation, analysis, and policy communication functions are concentrated in a single organisational home.

The embedded unit model provides the strongest operational continuity. A permanent team develops deep technical expertise in ocean accounting methods, maintains institutional memory across compilation cycles, and builds sustained relationships with both data providers and policy users. Because the unit sits within an existing agency, it can leverage the agency's administrative infrastructure, data systems, and policy networks. If embedded in the NSO, the unit benefits from the NSO's statistical authority and access to national accounts data. If embedded in the planning ministry, the unit has direct access to the planning processes that ocean accounts are intended to inform.

The embedded unit model concentrates responsibility in a single agency. The host agency's priorities may shape the accounting programme in ways that do not reflect the full range of government planning needs. Countries adopting this model should establish an advisory committee drawn from other relevant agencies to provide strategic direction to the unit and ensure that the compilation programme serves cross-government planning needs.

3.2.5 Comparative strengths

Table 1 summarises the comparative strengths and limitations of the three coordination models across five governance dimensions relevant to ocean accounting integration in national planning.

Table 1: Illustrative considerations based on synthesis of WAVES country experiences (2012--2021)

Note: The assessments in this table are illustrative considerations derived from a synthesis of WAVES programme country experiences and should not be interpreted as evidence-based ratings derived from a formal scoring exercise^[3:2].

No single model is universally superior. Countries should select or combine models based on their institutional context, the maturity of their national statistical system, and the political economy of inter-ministerial coordination. Many successful programmes use hybrid arrangements—for example, an embedded unit in the NSO that compiles accounts, supported by bilateral MOUs for data access, with an inter-ministerial task force that provides strategic direction and policy engagement. The Indonesia inter-ministerial working group example illustrates that the critical success factor is not the choice of model but whether the arrangement provides both technical capacity for compilation and political access to planning processes^[3:3]. See also the Section 5 case studies for further country-level evidence: TG-5.1 Indonesia, TG-5.5 India, TG-5.6 Australia Geographe Bay Case Study, and TG-5.7 Australia Blue Carbon Case Study.

3.2.6 Reviewing and adapting coordination arrangements

Establishing a coordination arrangement is not a one-time decision. Countries should assess whether their chosen model is functioning effectively and adapt it as institutional capacity, political conditions, and compilation volume evolve. Three diagnostic indicators provide a practical basis for this review: regularity and seniority of task force or coordination body meetings (a declining meeting rate or persistent delegation to junior staff signals attrition); data-delivery compliance rate against agreed schedules, as recorded in MOU delivery logs or data-sharing registers, as applicable to the coordination model in use (missed or delayed deliveries indicate that the relevant commitment requires renewal or renegotiation); and the proportion of planning-cycle entry points at which account outputs were available on time (systematic lateness points to a compilation-cycle misalignment that the coordination body should address).

A suggested review trigger is the close of each national planning cycle—typically every three to five years—or when a major funding or personnel disruption occurs, such as a budget cut to the compilation agency or the departure of a key champion. Reviews should also be prompted by significant changes in the scope of ocean accounting (for example, the addition of new account types) that may strain the existing coordination model's capacity. Countries may migrate between models as circumstances change: a country may begin with bilateral MOUs and transition to an embedded unit once compilation volume justifies permanent staffing, or add a task force layer when political visibility becomes a priority. Such transitions are normal and should be anticipated in the coordination body's founding documents (terms of reference, MOU agreements, or establishment mandate, as applicable).

3.3 Building and Sustaining Domestic Champions

3.3.1 Why champions matter

Institutional arrangements alone do not sustain ocean accounting programmes. Formal mandates, coordination bodies, and data-sharing agreements provide the structural scaffolding, but programmes depend on individuals who advocate for the work, defend its budget allocation during fiscal contractions, explain its value to sceptical colleagues, and connect technical outputs to policy debates. These individuals are champions, and their role is particularly important for ocean accounting because the field is relatively new, the outputs are unfamiliar to many planning officials, and the benefits of accounting may take several compilation cycles to become apparent.

Countries that have successfully sustained environmental-economic accounting programmes over multiple years consistently identify the presence of senior advocates—in the NSO, in the finance ministry, or in the head of government's office—as a critical success factor^[8]. The WAVES programme emphasised that "high-level political commitment" and "champions at senior levels of government" are among the most important prerequisites for successful natural capital accounting implementation^[3:4]. Champions serve three distinct functions that correspond to three types of champion: political, technical, and institutional. Effective ocean accounting programmes cultivate all three types, recognising that each serves a different purpose and operates in a different institutional space.

3.3.2 Political champions

Political champions are elected officials or senior political appointees who use their public platform and decision-making authority to advocate for ocean accounting. A minister of finance who cites ocean accounting data in budget speeches, a president or prime minister who references natural capital depletion in state-of-the-nation addresses, or a parliamentarian who calls for ocean economy reporting in legislative oversight hearings—these are political champions. Their advocacy creates the political demand signal that justifies budget allocations for compilation work and motivates agency heads to prioritise data contributions.

Identifying potential political champions requires understanding which political leaders have both an interest in ocean issues and the institutional position to influence planning processes. In many countries, the minister of finance or the head of the planning ministry is the most influential political champion because they control resource allocation decisions. In small island developing States, where the ocean economy may constitute a large share of national GDP, the head of government may take a personal interest in ocean accounting as a tool for demonstrating the country's marine resource endowment in international forums.

Engaging political champions requires translating accounting outputs into the language of political priorities. Politicians are interested in answers to questions such as: How much does the ocean contribute to our economy? Are our fish stocks growing or declining? Will our grandchildren inherit the same marine resources we have today? What return does the public get from investing in fisheries management or marine protected areas? Ocean accounting provides rigorous, internationally standardised answers to these questions. The budget presentation table format described in TG-1.1 Section 3.3 provides one such format; the depletion-adjusted GVA narrative in TG-1.1 Section 3.4 and the MTEF integration approach in TG-1.1 Section 3.6 provide the political-economy arguments most likely to resonate with finance and planning champions.

Political champions are inherently transient. Elections, cabinet reshuffles, and changes of government disrupt political advocacy. The governance design should therefore aim to build support across political parties and across multiple levels of government, so that ocean accounting survives changes in political leadership.

3.3.3 Technical champions

Technical champions are senior professionals in statistical, scientific, or analytical agencies who drive the methodological development and compilation quality of ocean accounts. The chief national accountant at the NSO, the chief scientist at the fisheries research institute, or the head of the marine environment division at the environment ministry—these individuals provide the technical credibility that underpins the programme's outputs and advocate for methodological investment within their agencies.

Technical champions are essential because ocean accounting requires sustained investment in statistical infrastructure, data systems, and human capital. When the NSO faces competing demands for limited compilation resources, a chief national accountant who understands the value of environmental-economic accounting will protect the ocean accounts compilation programme from being crowded out by other priorities. When the fisheries research institute is asked to provide stock assessment data in formats compatible with asset account requirements, a chief scientist who appreciates the planning applications of the data will ensure that staff time is allocated to the task.

Engagement strategies for technical champions should emphasise professional recognition and methodological advancement. Countries should support technical champions by funding participation in international meetings of the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA), the Global Ocean Accounts Partnership, and relevant regional statistical bodies. These forums provide both professional development and peer recognition that strengthen the champion's commitment and institutional standing.

Technical champions also benefit from structured peer networks. The 2025 SNA Implementation Strategy identifies a "Compilers Hub" as a "digital global collaboration platform" for sharing knowledge and facilitating collaboration^[7:2]. Ocean accounting programmes should connect their technical champions to such platforms, enabling them to learn from the experiences of peers in other countries.

3.3.4 Institutional champions

Institutional champions are agencies that adopt ocean accounting as a core part of their mandate, allocating recurrent budget and staff to compilation and policy communication. An NSO that lists ocean accounts in its multi-year statistical work programme, a planning ministry that requires ocean economy data in its development plan templates, or a fisheries ministry that uses asset account data as a standard input to stock management decisions—these agencies are institutional champions. Their commitment outlasts individual personnel changes because the accounting function is embedded in organisational structures, job descriptions, and budget lines.

Building institutional champions requires demonstrating that ocean accounting serves the agency's existing mandate rather than imposing additional work with unclear returns. For the NSO, ocean accounts extend the thematic and extended accounts portfolio that the 2025 SNA identifies as a priority, contributing to the agency's core mission of measuring economic performance and well-being^[2:1]. For the fisheries ministry, asset accounts provide the biomass trajectory data needed for stock management decisions that the ministry is already mandated to make. For the planning ministry, ocean economy data fill an information gap in development diagnostics that the ministry recognises but currently lacks the data to address.

The most effective approach to building institutional champions is to co-design the accounting programme with potential champion agencies, ensuring that the compilation outputs address questions the agency already faces. The coordination model chosen (Section 3.2) should be designed to facilitate this co-design process, bringing potential institutional champions into the programme design phase rather than presenting them with a completed plan.

3.3.5 Champion sustainability strategies

Sustaining champions over time requires deliberate investment in four areas:

Succession planning. When a champion retires, transfers, or is promoted, the programme loses advocacy capacity. Coordination bodies should identify and cultivate successor champions before transitions occur, ensuring that at least two individuals in each key agency understand and can advocate for the programme.

Regular demonstration of value. Champions can only sustain their advocacy if the programme produces outputs that demonstrably inform policy decisions. The coordination body should maintain a register of policy applications—instances where ocean accounting data influenced a budget allocation, a planning target, or a policy evaluation—and communicate these applications to champions and their superiors. The register should be owned by the coordination-body secretariat and maintained as a standing log recording, for each entry: the date, the decision context, the specific account data used, and the decision outcome. The budget use cases described in TG-1.1 Section 3.5 provide templates for documenting such applications. The log should be updated quarterly or at the close of each planning cycle, and an annual synthesis should be presented to champion agencies. Entries involving budget decisions or cabinet processes should be reviewed by the coordination-body secretariat before inclusion in the annual public synthesis; sensitive entries may be retained in an internal-only log until the relevant decision is publicly available.

International recognition. Champions' domestic standing is strengthened when their country's ocean accounting programme receives international recognition. Presenting results at UN Statistical Commission sessions, contributing to GOAP technical publications, or hosting study visits from other countries all enhance the programme's reputation and the champion's standing within their agency.

Embedding in institutional processes. The most durable form of champion support is to embed ocean accounting in the routine institutional processes of champion agencies—statistical work programmes, budget templates, planning guidelines, and performance indicators. Once ocean accounting data are required inputs to processes that agencies must complete regardless of individual preferences, the programme acquires institutional momentum that does not depend on any single champion's continued advocacy.

3.4 International Reporting Architectures

3.4.1 Ocean accounts and international commitments

Countries face a growing number of international reporting obligations that require data on ocean-related environmental and economic conditions. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change, and various regional fisheries management organisations all require countries to report on aspects of their ocean environment, economy, and governance. While UNCLOS establishes general duties for cooperation in protecting the marine environment (Part XII) and transferring technology (Part XIV), specific reporting obligations are increasingly driven by the BBNJ Agreement (2023), which mandates reporting on the use of marine genetic resources and capacity-building and technology transfer activities (Articles 51 and 54)^[9]. SEEA EA para. 14.28 notes that ocean accounts enable countries to use a "single, coherent database for reporting to multiple monitoring frameworks," with the potential to streamline data collection and organisation and build more robust and consistent indicator derivations across reporting commitments^[10].

The governance coordination body should map the country's international ocean-related reporting obligations and identify which account entries and derived indicators can serve as inputs to each reporting requirement. This mapping exercise reveals two practical benefits. First, it demonstrates that the investment in ocean accounting serves multiple reporting purposes, strengthening the case for compilation budget. Second, it identifies opportunities to reduce duplication: if the same fish stock data are currently compiled separately for SDG 14 reporting, regional fisheries management organisation reporting, and national fisheries management, consolidating this compilation into a single accounting framework reduces workload and improves consistency.

3.4.2 SDG reporting

Several SDG indicators draw directly on data that ocean accounts either compile or can supply. SDG 14.4.1 (proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels; Tier I, FAO custodian) corresponds to the physical fish stock asset account in TG-3.1. SDG 14.7.1 (sustainable fisheries as a proportion of GDP; originally restricted to small island developing States and least developed countries, progressively extended to more reporting countries following the 2023 custodian metadata update; Tier I, FAO custodian) corresponds to the ocean economy thematic account and the depletion-adjusted GVA calculation in TG-1.1 Section 3.4. SDG 14.5.1 (coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas; Tier I, UNEP-WCMC/WDPA custodians) corresponds to governance account entries on marine protected area designation and management. SDG 15.3.1 (proportion of land that is degraded over total land area; Tier I, UNCCD custodian) is an indirect mapping: while it is a primarily terrestrial indicator, ecosystem extent and condition accounts for coastal and transitional ecosystems can provide supporting data for land-sea interface degradation assessments. The coordination body should ensure that the NSO's SDG reporting focal point is connected to the ocean accounting compilation programme, so that SDG indicator compilation draws on accounting data rather than requiring parallel data collection.

3.4.3 GBF monitoring

The Kunming-Montreal GBF's monitoring framework includes indicators on ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, species population trends, and ecosystem service flows that SEEA EA is designed to support^[11]. Target 3 of the GBF states: "Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed..." This target directly requires data on marine and coastal protected area extent that ecosystem extent accounts can provide. Target 14 of the GBF calls for "the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning and development processes...within and across all levels of government and across all sectors," which explicitly calls for the kind of planning integration that this Circular addresses.

Countries that compile ocean accounts are well positioned to meet GBF reporting obligations because the accounting framework provides the structured, spatially explicit data that the monitoring framework requires. The governance coordination body should engage with the national CBD focal point to ensure that ocean accounting outputs feed into GBF national reports and national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).

3.4.4 Climate reporting

Ocean-related climate data—including blue carbon stocks in mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes; ocean-related greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport and fishing fleets; and ecosystem-based adaptation measures such as coastal protection by mangroves—are increasingly important for national climate reports, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and biennial transparency reports under the Paris Agreement. Ecosystem condition and extent accounts for coastal vegetated ecosystems provide the carbon stock data needed for blue carbon reporting, while ocean economy accounts can track emissions from maritime sectors. The coordination body should engage with the national UNFCCC focal point to ensure that ocean accounting outputs feed into NDC updates, biennial transparency reports, and NAP submissions.

3.5 Regional Platform Leverage

3.5.1 Regional platforms as enablers

Regional platforms and organisations play an important enabling role for national ocean accounting programmes by providing technical support, facilitating peer learning, and creating political demand for comparable cross-country ocean data. The Global Ocean Accounts Partnership (GOAP) and regional statistical bodies such as the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) have developed regional ocean accounting platforms that support country-level implementation. While SEEA EA paras. 13.90-13.92 describe regional implementation arrangements in general terms, specific guidance for the ESCAP region is provided in the ESCAP Ocean Accounts Framework (UN ESCAP, 2021)^[12]. Countries outside the ESCAP region—including those in the Atlantic, Caribbean, West Africa, and Latin America sub-regions—should engage directly with the GOAP Secretariat for region-specific technical support; GOAP maintains a register of regional support contacts and can connect countries with relevant peer networks and technical assistance where no dedicated regional platform yet exists.

Countries should leverage regional platforms in three ways. First, use regional technical assistance to build initial compilation capacity. Regional bodies often have access to technical expertise and compilation tools that individual countries—particularly small island developing States with limited statistical capacity—cannot develop independently. Second, participate in regional peer-learning networks that enable countries at different stages of implementation to share experiences, methodological innovations, and lessons from coordination challenges. Third, use regional forums to build political support for ocean accounting by presenting national results in contexts where comparison with neighbouring countries creates incentives for continued investment.

3.5.2 Regional fisheries and ocean governance bodies

Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), large marine ecosystem programmes, and regional seas conventions provide governance platforms where ocean accounting data have direct policy applications. RFMOs require stock assessment data that physical fish stock asset accounts (TG-3.1 Asset Accounts) can provide. Large marine ecosystem programmes (such as those supported by the Global Environment Facility) require integrated environmental-economic assessments that ocean accounts are designed to produce. Regional seas conventions (such as the Nairobi Convention, the Barcelona Convention, and the Noumea Convention) increasingly call for integrated marine and coastal area assessments that draw on the kinds of data ocean accounts compile.

The coordination body should identify the regional ocean governance bodies relevant to the country and establish channels through which ocean accounting outputs reach these forums. This serves the dual purpose of demonstrating international applications that strengthen the domestic case for continued compilation and contributing to the evidence base for regional ocean management decisions.

3.5.3 South-South cooperation

Countries that have established ocean accounting programmes can support neighbouring countries through South-South cooperation arrangements. These arrangements—which may include secondment of technical staff, joint training programmes, and shared compilation tools—accelerate implementation in receiving countries while deepening the expertise of contributing countries. The coordination body should explore South-South cooperation opportunities with countries in the same region or with similar ocean economies, building networks that sustain implementation beyond the initial establishment phase.

4. Acknowledgements

This Circular has been approved for public circulation and comment by the GOAP Technical Experts Group in accordance with the Circular Publication Procedure.

Authors: [To be confirmed]

Reviewers: [To be confirmed]

5. References